The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This appears to be an urban myth. I had considered it a conspiracy theory rather than a "purported practice" since there appears to be only a single academic claiming its reality whereas all other sources debunk it, similar to such claims as the existence of ius primae noctis. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and unless this article is treated as what it is: an urban legend claimed to be true by a fringe theorist, it should probably be deleted lest it turn into another Alan MacMasters. CorwenAv (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an urban myth, and the article clearly confirms that. Seems well-sourced, not culturally appropriate these days, but it was a thing in popular culture at one point. So long as we have clearly explained in NPOV what it was and why it's "bad news", it's ok. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the inclusion of it as an urban legend, but the article should declare what it is in the first sentence, short description, and categories rather than giving WP:UNDUE weight to the opinion of a single scholar who is of otherwise limited notability (neither he nor any works by him are notable enough to have their own entries). The categorisations and descriptions of it as an urban legend have been repeatedly reverted, and my deletion proposal is solely motivated by concern that a fringe theory is being given more credibility than it deserves. CorwenAv (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keeps seems to be a thing that's discussed in academia, therefore it seems to me to be notable. I'm not a great fan of the format of the page title or the way the page has been written, but that's a different question to notability. JMWt (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if outright deletion is not available. As I pointed out on the talk page, this is entirely the assertion of one (not very impressive) academic who has been refuted. It's absolutely false, and the article's existence is trying to convert depictions of children on postcards into actual practice, despite the fact this never happened. A page like Stereotypes of African Americans where the relevant couple lines could exist would be the place to put this in context without Wikipedia helping prop up a fringe theory (which, as we've seen repeatedly people will quote Wikipedia and it will take on a life of its own.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk21:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but edit the wording to make it even more clear that we're talking about something that never happened except in the imagination of racists. Perhaps even remove Hughes from the article. NPOV does not mean "include every fringe theory". But all of that is secondary to this being a notable topic. casualdejekyll23:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is ample evidence (both primary sources and discussion in reliable sources) of this having existed as a stereotype or urban legend (in the folklore sense); the disagreements about the article appear to be preponderantly about balance. I have restored the "legend" and "urban legend" categories added by CorwenAv, but not the "conspiracy theory" ones; the applicability of that term should probably be discussed on the talk page. I've also notified the article creator and two others who have made substantial edits to the article, since CorwenAv does not appear to have made any notifications. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Black children being called alligator bait is a stereotype/epithet/pejorative that passes WP:GNG because (as others have stated) it has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. If the article needs cleanup or a clearer title to keep it in line with our P&G, that's not a reason to delete. ––FormalDude(talk)03:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I really think "speedy keep" might apply here: the nominator presents nothing at all. "an urban legend claimed to be true by a fringe theorist"--what? We have an article here on a specific trope used by racists and race baiters. The issue is truth doesn't even apply. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sangdeboeuf beat me to it, but being an urban legend does not preclude an article on the subject. This article's subject absolutely meets WP:GNG, so I don't see a cause for deletion. There is a very important difference between the deception of a WP:HOAX article presenting a false narrative as true, and an article documenting something that may not be true, but in an accurate way that does not attempt to deceive. - Aoidh (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator's claim that this is an urban myth (as opposed to a rural myth) is presented without evidence and almost certainly incorrect, but that does not matter much. Myths can be notable and this racist myth is notable. Encyclopedic coverage of notable racist myths is an important component of our coverage of racism. Cullen328 (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The term "urban myth" has no inherent connotations of town or country, it is merely a descriptor of contemporary folklore (as opposed to myths with extremely long history such as tales of King Arthur or Achilles). My concern was solely that undue weight was being given to a fringe theory (namely that black children actually were used as bait for alligators), I never had any opposition to covering this trope as myth. CorwenAv (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment recent edits to the article mean I am satisfied it is no longer misleading or giving undue weight to fringe theory so I hereby withdraw the proposal. CorwenAv (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IP editing is absolutely allowed during the AFD process. Labeling me as an WP:SPA is absurd. My IP address fluctuates constantly and I don’t have a registered account. At this point your rationale for these suggested edits is highly dubious. I plan to watch your edits going forward. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:7185:33B9:AA2C:7D97 (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I originally thought that this would need to be disambiguated, but a quick Google suggests that this is indeed the primary topic for "alligator bait" (you'd think the primary topic would be, you know, actual food for alligators, but I guess not). casualdejekyll14:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep per Sundayclose. We do have articles on urban legends, folklore, conspiracy theories, and even hoaxes if they pass GNG. Subject here passes the WP:GNG. —usernamekiran (talk)08:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
